Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coolapk-mcp-pro

coolapk-mcp-pro

by yufeng-liang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

coolapk_login_status

Checks the current Coolapk login state, including whether a session is logged in, its source, and device-code configuration, without making network requests.

Instructions

查看当前酷安登录状态（只读，不触发网络请求）。

返回 login_mode(登录模式配置)、is_logged_in(是否已登录)、 uid/username(登录用户)、source(登录态来源 desktop|native|none)、 device_code(设备码是否已配置)。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "coolapk_login_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two behaviorally important traits: read-only and no network I/O. It also enumerates the returned fields including the source enum. It stops short of saying whether all callers can use it or how failures surface, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded: the purpose and its read-only/no-network qualifier come first, and the field list follows. The return-field enumeration is mildly redundant with the output schema, but it is short and plainly formatted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, this description covers what the tool is, its safety profile, and what each returned field means. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the result without further context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate at the input layer. It uses the space instead to explain outputs, which is a reasonable trade.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('查看当前酷安登录状态') and scopes it precisely as a read-only, no-network status read. No sibling tool in the list deals with authentication state, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from the search/feed/profile tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical ('只读，不触发网络请求') implies this is a cheap precondition check, which nudges the agent to call it before authenticated operations. However, it never says explicitly when to use it versus just attempting a search, nor what to do if it returns not-logged-in.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools